Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/07/22/adversarial-interop.html
…
7 Likes
I dunno about that - that’s a preexisting feature in FF; isn’t that like putting a ‘copy protection’ switch inside a box, and then trying to ban philips screwdrivers?
1 Like
and handing you one at the exact same time.
2 Likes
4 Likes
I see your thumbnails are beyond the maximum allowable length, citizen.
that better? they show up here unless I clear my browser and reload.
(different graphic, same point)
Way to strip the meaning from my comment 
2 Likes
I did try to make it obvious in my later comment, plus I ticked the boxes in my firefox, so your DRM is moot 
(oh i see, I still see that notch as a switch, I didn’t even see what I had originally done there!)
This whole argument really misses the point. Yes, of course this is easily breakable if you are trying to act maliciously, the point here is to force someone to have to act maliciously.
If I send someone an email with a note at the bottom that says “this is confidential please do not forward” they might be in a hurry, it distracted, or just miss it. If I make it so they have to fiddle around with Dev settings, or take a screen shot, then they won’t.
If they are acting maliciously, then this is going to make things a lot easier to prove if it ever ends up in court.
Locks in the real world are there to keep the honest honest, and they do a good job of it.
1 Like
This feature could be salvaged with simple tweaks: rename it to “Sender’s intent” or some such, and set a license that says Google will only use DMCA against actual attacks, proactively allowing a range of benign integrations and inspections.
As an “intent” feature, this is really great: careers have been destroyed by accidentally forwarding a thread that contained private information, and adding friction to the UX in that case is a win for users. The override could be as simple as “Do you want to ignore the sender’s intent that this information not be forwarded? [send anyway] [cancel].”
I don’t think Google will do these things.
3 Likes
I think the message is “We really hate DRM in all its forms,” rather than a thoughtful critique of this feature.
1 Like
Firefox has really improved, but when it was flailing around I moved to Pale Moon because it did/does everything I want it to, except play YouTube. Haven’t figured that out. I simply go to Chrome for that. One should really have a wide choice of browsers. And, BTW, it is absolutely possible to remove IE from your system. Not Edge tho. You just ignore that one.
I love getting emails out of the blue with those at the bottom.
I get a chuckle out of the idea that I’ve suddenly been made a party in a contract of adhesion.
6 Likes
If Google’s DRM had any effect, however small, beyond its intended role, I would think they’d be vulnerable to exactly the same kind of criminal penalties under the DMCA they plan to inflict on others.
And that’s the only valid message. DRM is a ridiculous idea, which is mathematically impossible to actually work. But trying to make it work with legislation leads to all sorts of very undesirable laws. It drives device makers to make their devices ‘tamper proof’ i.e. unrepairable and not really yours.
It’s logically impossible to give someone the key for viewing content, but not for copying.
3 Likes
Except the feature here is not “make this impossible” it is “make this impossible to do without knowing it is against my expressed wishes” - the exact way locks work out in the real world.
This has got my thinking that a feature that disables “reply all” would be extremely helpful also.
Doesn’t BCC do that? 
1 Like
I guess what I’m looking for here is something that can be turned on retoactively (I wonder if that might actually be possible as an outlook plugin or something like that…hmmm).
maliciously as redefined by the introduction of the product line.
Prior to that it was called getting an email.
You’re not particularly good at reframing the effect as the cause, fyi.
4 Likes
locks only keep out honest people, in the real world.
–adding–
envelopes work real well at keeping messages private.
But sending a message and keeping it private - not possible in the real world.
If you want it safe, keep it to yourself.
